Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
18th October 2005, 10:03 AM
Interesting question Troll.
Well for a start, it might put an end to that age old problem of standards and complaints. If you're not a member of the IFA and don't work for an RAO, then they have no authority to take you to task over the quality of your work (or employment practice). This in turn leads to all those accusations that the IFA turn a blind eye to bab practice and practitioners.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
We are the consultants you are looking for
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
18th October 2005, 10:10 AM
I tend to agree with Sith, but it does end up being a chicken and the egg thing - the IFA can only achive true validity and power in any archaeological debate when it has a significant number of members, who will only be willing to join once the IFA is seen to achive these goals. So in the end, those diggers out there that can afford the monthly subs should join, see what happens for a while, then make an informed decision about what good the IFA can do. It might be worth pushing the point that IFA memebership is tax deductable and maybe making more of a thing of what the IFA does provide (I myself have made frequent use of their very good legal line when poleaxed by legalese in contracts). Maybe the IFA should look into making itself a more attractive proposition to traditional field archaeologist in other obvious and meaningful ways (bulk buying kit for resale, subsidised stuff ??).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
18th October 2005, 10:16 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Barnesy
Maybe the IFA should look into making itself a more attractive proposition to traditional field archaeologist in other obvious and meaningful ways (bulk buying kit for resale, subsidised stuff ??).
Perhaps this should be mentioned to the IFA Diggers Forum? And perhaps more field staff should think about joining the forum as well if they're serious about influencing the organisation in a positive way. It's only a fiver a year, and you don't need to be a member of the IFA either.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
18th October 2005, 11:51 AM
Barnsey-lots of us did just that and then left the vaccuum. I have high hopes for the Diggers Forum and wish them well but, I would welcome visible, tangible effort from the IFA itself before my weekly lunch budget is handed over. On a personal note, I e-mailed the Diggers forum months ago and am yet to receive a response. In this light, the forum in my veiw is in danger of becoming as inert as the body itself.Still not convinced.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
18th October 2005, 12:02 PM
Troll- I thought that would be the case, just grasping at the obvious straws
However, what do people say to the crafting of a suitable letter perhaps suggesting a few issues debated here directed at the forum, perhaps even the BAJR conference debating issues since there does seem to be some agreement there, and try to get a IFA/Diggers Forum response or representation?. What say people to multiple signatories etc to add a bit of weight? If they ignore that....B)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
20th October 2005, 01:02 PM
Sounds good. I still find it a bit laughable that as a profession, signing up to and practising within standards and guidelines is totally optional. Units and individuals who operate outside of cross-industry standards can continue to do so with impunity.Even those who transgress after signing up-at most will receive nothing more than a cosy chat over tea and biccies.Going to stick my neck on the block here....
Is`nt it high time that some sort of charter mark (similar to RAO but with real teeth) became a basic requirement for those operating in the industry. I would very much like to see the IFA become a bench mark Institute where membership for managerial staff as a minimum was not an optional extra. I would like to see standards adopted industry wide as a basic minimum requirement in the tendering process. This of course implies that standards would need to be policed effectively.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
20th October 2005, 01:41 PM
The common problem I seem to come up against partcularly when requirement MIFA (or other specific requirement), is that that effectively restricts the market potentially illegally. Effectively we need the IFA, or whatever organisation, to move more into QUANGO territory so it has some sort of legal status where is could 'administer' the background standard archaeological work being undertaken, while regional/local curators carried on doing what they do now.
(I really have worked in the field)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
20th October 2005, 06:58 PM
Chartered status for the IFA is required.
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
20th October 2005, 08:00 PM
Ta Inv, I seemed to have use 30 words when 7 would've done it
(I really have worked in the field)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
21st October 2005, 09:51 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by the invisible man
Chartered status for the IFA is required.
I heard a little while ago that this had actually been suggested, but I don't know how far the discussion went, or if it's still on the table.
